The letter which Anthony had written in the
early hours of that morning and despatched
by District Messenger, the letter which had brought
so important a person as Mr. Egbert Lucas down to
Abbotshall, had run as follows:—
“My Dear Lucas,—As you know, I have been playing
at detectives down at Marling. I have finished my game;
the rest is up to you.
“What I have found, how I have found it, and my
opinion of the meaning of what I have found you will
discover set out in the enclosed document, typed by my
very own fingers. You may—I cannot tell—think my
conclusions wrong, and say that in real life, even as in
fairy tales, a set of circumstances, a collection of clues,
may equally lead to the innocent as to the guilty. For me,
however, I am convinced. To put it in my own diffident
way: I know that I am right!
“So please read the enclosed. If you agree with me,
as I think you will, you will yet find that the evidence is
insufficient: and you will be right. I will, therefore,
endeavour to arrange for a confession by the guilty person
to be given in the (unsuspected) presence of officers of
your able department. In order for this to be done, will
you give orders for some of your men—three, including
a shorthand writer, would be enough—to meet me at the
cross-roads on the London side of Marling at about nine
to-night? I will then get them covertly into Abbotshall
and dispose them in advantageous but secret positions.
This may, I know, be irregular, but you can take it that
I can manage things without any one in the house knowing
until the business is over. Once your men are where I
shall put them, I shall enter the house by a more orthodox
way. The rest will follow.
“This is asking a lot of you, but, after all, you know
me well enough to be reasonably certain that I am less of
a fool than most. So, if you agree with my conclusions
as set out in the report, please arrange this. Whether
you agree or not, ring me up, before seven to-night, at my
pub in Marling (Greyne 29). If I am not there leave a
message: ‘All right’ or ‘Nothing doing,’ as the case may
be. Whichever your answer is, I will ring you up when
I have received it.
“My main reason—or one of my main reasons—for
doing all this work was to do Hastings’s little paper, The
Owl, a good turn. The report is really for them, though
I don’t know when and to what extent you will allow them
to publish it. But I rely on you to see that The Owl gets
as much journalistic fat as it can digest. No other paper
must hear a whisper until you’ve allowed Hastings to make
a scoop out of the ‘Dramatic New Developments.’
“Yours,
“A. R. Gethryn.”
“P.S.—Don’t forget that if you decide to let me try to
arrange this confession, I may fail. I don’t think I will;
but I might. I shall rely to a great extent upon the fact
that I am something of an actor.”
Coming to the end of this letter, Mr. Egbert Lucas
had whistled beneath his breath, instructed his secretary
that on no account was he to be disturbed, and had
settled down—he has the most comfortable chair in
the Yard—to read the typewritten report.
Unfolding it, he murmured: “Unexpected chap,
Gethryn. This ought to be interesting.”
He read:—
“The Murder Of John Hoode
“Upon the morning of the 20th of August, 192–,
I drove to the village of Marling in Surrey. By 9.30
a. m. I had gained admission to the house Abbotshall.
“Owing to circumstances which need not be set
down here, and also, in a great measure, to the courtesy
and assistance of Superintendent Boyd of Scotland
Yard, I was able from the beginning to pursue
unhampered my own investigations. The result of these
I give below.
“(For reasons which must, I think, be obvious, I
have divided this report into four parts. Also, I
would point out that, for reasons equally evident, the
steps in my deduction, reasoning—call it what you
will—are not necessarily given here in their
chronological order.)
I
“Immediately upon my arrival at Abbotshall, I
spoke at some length with Superintendent Boyd, who
gave me the history of the affair as obtained by him
through close questioning of the inmates. It appeared
then that with the exception of the butler, these one
and all had alibis, complete in some cases and in others
as nearly so as could be expected of persons who had
not known beforehand that they were like to be
accused of murder. (Later, of course, it was
revealed—see reports of the inquest—that Mr. Archibald
Deacon’s alibi did not exist in fact.)
“Superintendent Boyd and I at once agreed that to
suspect the alibiless Poole (the butler) was folly. He
had been, obviously and by common report, devoted to
his master. Moreover, he is physically incapable—even
were he out of his mind—of dealing such blows as
caused the death of the murdered man.
“After our conversation, Superintendent Boyd and
I together made an examination of the study, the room
in which the murder was done. Together we came to
the following conclusions,¹ all of which were explained
by the superintendent in his evidence at the inquest.
Since, therefore, these points are by this common
knowledge, I will not go into the processes by which
they were arrived at, but will merely enumerate them
as follows:—
“(i) That when Hoode was struck, either by the
first or all the blows, he was seated at
his table.
“(ii) That the appearance of the room had been
carefully arranged to convey the impression
that a struggle had taken place.
“(iii) That the murderer was well known to
Hoode, and was, in all probability, an
inmate of the house.
“(iv) That the murderer had worn gloves for
most of the time during which he was in
the study, there being no finger-prints
anywhere except on the wood-rasp.
“(v) That the blows which killed Hoode must
have had tremendous strength behind
them.
“(vi) That, in all probability, the murderer
entered by the window. (I fully endorsed,
at that stage of the inquiry, the opinion
of the Police that Poole’s evidence was
reliable.)
“It will be seen that the cumulative implication of
these six points tends to strengthen considerably the
case against Deacon, which even without them is by
no means weak circumstantially. It is now, therefore,
that the keynote of my report must come.
“I met and spoke with Deacon for the first time on
the afternoon of the day I arrived at Abbotshall. It
needed but three minutes with him to convince me
that here was a man who had not been, was not,
and never could be a murderer. I cannot defend this
statement with logic. It was simply conviction.
Like this: In a party of, say, twelve persons there will
be eleven about none of whom I could say definitely:
‘That one is incapable of stealing the baby’s
marmalade’; but in the twelfth I may find a man—perhaps
unknown to me before—of whom I can swear before
God or man: ‘He could not have stolen the baby’s
marmalade—not even if he had tried to! He is
incapable of carrying out such a crime.’
“Deacon was a twelfth man. Before I had seen
him, my views were beginning to differ from those
of Scotland Yard: after I had seen and spoken with
him they became directly opposed. It became my
business to prove, in spite of all difficulties, that this
man, whatever the appearances, had had no hand in
the death of John Hoode. In what follows, they
who read will find, I hope, absolute proof of his
innocence; or if not that, at least a battering-ram to shake
the tower of their belief in his guilt.
“Knowing that Deacon was not the murderer, I
nevertheless realised that his innocence—so strong was
the case against him—could only be established by
definite proof that some one else was. That is to say:
a negative defence would be useless.
“It will be seen, then, that the divergence of my
opinions from those of the Crown began almost at the
outset of my investigation.
“Let us go back to the study at Abbotshall. On
each of the numbered points I gave earlier, I agreed
with Superintendent Boyd. Where I began to—had
to—disagree was concerning their implication of
Deacon. Points (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) can be
left alone; they will fit my murderer as well as, or
better than, they fit Deacon. The remaining two,
however, must be dealt with more fully.
“We will take (v) first. The obvious fact that
strength far above the normal was behind the blows
that killed Hoode was a perfect link in the chain of
circumstantial evidence against the gigantic Deacon.
But at the inquest, Dr. Fowler, the divisional surgeon,
said: ‘The wounds were inflicted so far as I can
judge, either by a man three times stronger than the
average or by a person of either sex who was insane
and had the terrible strength of the insane.’
“Having to find an alternative to Deacon and having
determined to cling to my theory that the murderer
was an inhabitant—permanent or temporary—of the
house, my choice of Dr. Fowler’s alternative was a
man or woman mentally unbalanced. This choice
was not, as it might at first seem, a drawback; rather
was it the reverse. For one of my first impressions
had been that there was something of terrible
senselessness about the whole affair, and this impression
had increased a thousandfold when I saw the battered
head of the dead man. Madness was my first thought
then. Those blows—four of them, mark you! when
the first had been obviously sufficient—surely spoke
of madness; either the lust for blood and destruction
of a confirmed homicidal maniac or the consummation
of a hatred so deadly, so complete in its possession of
the hater, as to constitute of itself insanity.
“The second was the theory I adopted. For,
believing the murderer to be an inmate of the house, it
was clear that I must look for one whose insanity was
not of a type apparent to the world.
“Now for point (vi)—the entry by the window.
As I have said, I agreed with the police that the
murderer did enter by the window; but there our
agreement ceased. It is a point in the crown’s case against
Deacon that his are the only legs in the house long
enough to enable their owner to clear the flower-bed
in stepping from the flagged path to the low sill of the
study window. This, I am sure, is, as evidence against
Deacon, more than useless. I have not taken measurements,
but it is obvious that even for his long legs,
a step right into the study would be impossible. This
being so, the fact that he could step on to the
window-sill is of no importance whatever. For one thing, it
would have been extremely difficult for him to retain
balance; for another, if he had retained his balance, the
necessary scrabbling at the window and the twisting and
turning he would have had to perform to get legs
and then body into the room would have attracted
Hoode’s attention before he could see enough of the
intruder to recognise him. And then the theory,
agreed by the police, that Hoode did not rise from, or
anyhow did not remain long out of, his chair, falls
to the ground.
“Now let us get back to my murderer. Yes, he
got in by the window; but he left the flower-bed
unmarked. Now, as he is a member of the household
we know that his legs cannot be as long as Deacon’s.
How, then, did he approach the window?
“He must have (a) jumped over the flower-bed and
into the room; (b) stepped on the flower-bed, but, on
leaving, repaired or disguised the damage he had done;
or (c) got his feet on to the sill and his whole self into
the room without having crossed the flower-bed.
“It is almost impossible that he should have done
(a); (b) is unlikely, since after the murder the
murderer had no time to spare. (This is proved later.)
One is left, then, with the conviction that the real
answer lies in (c). This means either that the
murderer erupted through the floor or walls of the
study or that he descended the wall of the house and
entered the open study window without ever reaching
the earth in his journey. (Entrance through the door
is barred. Remember, we are taking Poole’s evidence
on that point as reliable.)
“As the murderer was presumably flesh and blood
and there was no hole in walls or floor, I fastened on
the ‘descent’ theory, which was subsequently confirmed
by an examination of the wall outside and above the
open study window. Over this wall—over the whole
house, in fact—the commonest and creepiest of creepers
creeps. I refer to Ampelopsis Veitchii. A large
drainage-pipe runs to earth beside the study window
in question, and for a space of perhaps half a foot on
each side of it throughout its length the creeper has
been cleared away. But half-way between the top of
the window through which the murderer entered the
study and the first-floor windows above it, a shoot of
creeper has pushed its way out into the cleared space
beside the pipe. This shoot drew my attention because
it was black and shrivelled.
“Ampelopsis Veitchii, though one of the commonest
forms of creeper, is also one of the most tender. A
sharp blow upon the main branch of a shoot: means
death to that shoot within a few hours. The dead
piece of creeper I refer to was, I thought at first, at
that point on the wall where it might have been struck
by the feet of a man of middle height climbing out
of either of the first-floor windows over the open one
of the study at the moment when he was clutching
the sill with one or both hands and hanging with
arms bent.
“It was, I saw, clearly impossible for the murderer
to have dropped from the upper window on to the
sill of the open study window and so miraculously to
have retained his balance that he did not fall on to the
flower-bed. Also—in spite of the novelists—there are
few drain-pipes which can be used to climb by. This
drain-pipe is no exception. Fingers could not be
clasped round it; neither would it support more than
a five or six-stone weight. It was clear, therefore,
that the murderer, in descending the wall, had used
something to climb down—probably a rope. (Descent
of the wall was another confirmation of the theory
that the murderer was of the house.)
“It will have been noticed that I have used the
masculine personal pronoun to describe the murderer.
Dr. Fowler’s statement at the inquest, which I quoted
earlier, would allow, given insanity, of equal rights
to women. But I felt, from the beginning, that John
Hoode had been killed by a man, and I worked throughout
on that assumption. At every turn little things
told me that this was a man’s work; and I was finally
satisfied when I accepted the theory of descent by the
wall.
“I will bring to an end here the first part of this
report. But before starting upon the next, I will
summarise the conclusions already shown, give them
life with a touch of imagination, and let you see the
picture.
“The murder was committed by a man who, if not
completely mad, was at least insane in his hatred of
Hoode and Hoode’s. He was at the time of the
murder an inmate of Abbotshall. He effected entrance
to the study that night by letting himself down from
the more easterly of the first-floor windows over the
most easterly of the study windows. He spoke to
Hoode, jokingly explaining his unceremonious entry.
By some pretext (it would, you know, be easy enough)
he got behind Hoode as he sat at his big table. Then
he struck.
“His object achieved, he carries out the plan he has
been hatching for weeks. He sets the scene,
overturning chairs, spilling papers, dragging the body to
the hearth—and all as quietly as you please. He
steps back, to regard with pleasure the result of his
labours.
“He overturns the clock, having moved the sofa
to rest it upon. He moves back the hands of the
clock until they stand at 10.45. A quarter to eleven,
mark you! Not ten to, not twenty to, not twenty-three
and a half minutes to—but a quarter to!
“He gives a hasty glance round the room. Every
thing is in order. He thrusts his head cautiously from
the window. All is as he had calculated: there is
nobody about; the night is sufficiently dark. He goes
up his rope again and through that first-floor window.
II
“Having established our criminal as at least a
monomaniac and an inhabitant—permanent or
temporary—of the house, let us go further into detail.
“First, as regards the finger-prints of which so much
has been heard and so few have been seen.
“Every one is satisfied that the murderer wore
gloves, because nowhere else in the study, where he
must have handled one thing after another, were any
finger-prints found. They are found, these important
pieces of evidence, upon the one object where their
presence is utterly damning—and there only!
“The spirals, whorls, and what-nots which compose
these marks correspond exactly with those to be found
in the skin and thumb and first two fingers of Archibald
Deacon’s right hand. Ergo, say Police and Public,
Archibald Deacon is the murderer. But I say that
these finger-prints go a long way to prove (even
without the rest of my evidence) that Deacon cannot be the
murderer.
“Here is the one really clever murder (of those
discovered) committed within the last fifteen years.
Yet, if one take the popular view, one has to believe
that the murderer, who was wise enough to wear
gloves during the greater part of the time he was in
the study, actually removed one of them and carefully
pressed his thumb and fingers upon the highly
receptive surface of his weapon’s handle before leaving that
weapon in a nice easy place for the first policemen to
find!
“Surely the fallacy of blindly accepting as the
murderer the man who made those prints is obvious?
Consider the position of the marks. They point down
the handle, towards the blade! It is almost incredible
that at any time would the murderer have held the
weapon as a Regency buck dandled his tasselled cane.
“My difficulty was to reconcile with Deacon’s
innocence of the murder the presence of his
finger-prints upon the tool with which it was committed.
That the prints were his I had too much respect for the
efficacy of the Scotland Yard system to doubt.
“A possible solution came to me from memory of
a detective story² I once read, in which the murderer,
something of a practical scientist, made, by means of
an ingenious and practicable photographical process, a
die of another’s man’s thumb-print. This he used to
incriminate the innocent owner of the thumb.
“For a while I cherished this theory, so vivid was
my recollection of the possibility of the method; but
I was never really satisfied. Then, suddenly, I found
the explanation which I was afterwards to prove true.
“Instead of going to the immense trouble of making
a stamp or die, why not obtain beforehand upon the
desired object the actual finger-prints of the chosen
scapegoat?
“After consideration, I accepted this idea. It fitted
well enough with my murderer—a fellow of infinite
cunning. I proceeded with the work of reconstruction.
Thus:—
“Since Deacon had no knowledge of the crime, the
murderer must have induced him, in circumstances so
ordinary or usual as to be likely to escape his memory,
to take hold of the wood-rasp by its handle at some time
before the murder; perhaps eight hours, probably not
more. For this clever murderer would realise the
difficulty of retaining the finger-prints unspoiled.
“When, after obtaining the finger-prints, he had got
rid of Deacon, he must have removed with gloved
hands—taking care not to touch those parts of the
handle where the prints must be—the handle he had
loosened before Deacon had held it. Then that handle
must have been packed (say in a small box with cork
wedges) in such a way as to ensure that its carriage in
the pocket for the descent of the wall and subsequent
activities could be effected without those beautiful marks
being spoiled. The reassembling of the tool must have
been done after the murder; and the whole Deacon-damning
bit of evidence then planted for the police to
find.
“In the study, on a later visit, I found confirmation
of the accuracy of my deductions. It will be
remembered that when the wood-rasp was produced at the
inquest, it was proved to the satisfaction of the court that
it was indeed the weapon which had caused Hoode’s
death. This proof lay pre-eminently in the condition of
the blade, which was far from nice. But it was also
pointed out by the police, to make the jury’s assurance
doubly sure, that on a little rosewood table in the study
there was a scar on the polish, known not to have
existed before, which had obviously been made by the
blade of just such a wood-rasp as this wood-rasp.
Superintendent Boyd gave it as his opinion that the
murderer had laid the wood-rasp on this table after he had
killed Hoode, and while he was arranging the
appearance of a struggle.
“I agree with the superintendent—but only up to a
point. Where he was wrong was in assuming that the
scar had been made by the murderer having put down
on the table the whole wood-rasp.
“That scar is of exactly the same length as the blade
of the rasp, and is in the centre of the table, having on
every side of it some six inches of unscarred table-top.
“Do you see? That scar could not have been made
by the complete tool! The handle is two and a half
to three inches in circumference, and if it had been
joined to the blade would, by reason of its far greater
thickness, have allowed no more than an inch or so
of the blade’s tip to touch and scar the table. Had
the complete rasp been laid down at an edge of the
table with the handle projecting into space, the
full-length scar would have been possible. But the scar,
as I have described, is in the middle of the table, and
could therefore only have been made by the blade
without its handle.
“Here, then, was the justification of my theory.
Further proof came later. With full official permission
I examined the wood-rasp. It was as it had been
found. I held it in my hand. I shook it—and the
blade flew off. Two small wooden wedges fell to the
floor. I picked a shred of linen from the tang of the
blade.
“Obviously, the use of the little wedges had been
to hold the tang of the blade in the enlarged socket
of the handle. And the fact that the socket had been
enlarged, added to the inadequacy of the wedges, is
surely proof enough that the blows which killed Hoode
were struck with the blade alone. There is, however,
yet more—the shred of linen. It came, I should say,
from a handkerchief, the use of which had been, I
take it, to get a better grip of the thin tang when
striking. The glove the murderer was undoubtedly
wearing probably proved insufficient to ensure against
a slipping grip. So he wrapped a handkerchief about
his gloved hand. An inequality in the surface of the
steel caught some loose thread. This he did not notice
when hastily ramming handle and blade together after
the kill.
“The wedges and the shred of linen are in the
keeping of Superintendent Boyd, to whom I gave them at
the time of my discovery. I could not, my case
being incomplete, explain then their significance.
“My next step was to question Deacon. To my
surprise and consternation I found that although he
was a man for whom tools had neither interest nor
meaning and for whom therefore the handling of any
such implement might be so much out of the ordinary
as to impress itself upon his memory, he had no
recollection of ever seeing, before the inquest, any
wood-rasp. He even suggested that until now he had not
known such a tool to exist.
“I will not deny that Deacon’s emphatic assertion
that he had never even seen the rasp until it was
exhibited at the inquest gave me a shaking. It did,
and a bad one. I tested all the links in my chain,
only to find each sound and the whole most obviously
right—until this blind alley.
“Then it struck me, and I laughed at myself as
those who read are probably already laughing at me.
I saw that I was committing the grave error of
underrating my man. I saw that so far from having
received a check I had really been advanced.
“The finger-prints were on the handle of the rasp,
and the handle—had I not been at much pains to prove
it—had been separated from the blade by the murderer.
The murderer—being an intelligent murderer—would
certainly never have been such a fool as to let the
fearsome and so-likely-to-be-remembered blade within
Deacon’s sight. No, it was far more likely that he
had disguised the handle as the handle of something
else.
“Having got thus far, I progressed at speed. As
what could he have disguised the handle? With
efficacy, only as that of another tool. But he probably
knew Deacon as a man who had no truck with tools.
How, then, did he get the so-ordinary surroundings
necessary to prevent awkward memories arising
afterwards in the mind of Deacon? The answer is that they
were there, ready-made, to his hand. In order to avoid
obscurity, I will elucidate this.
“The indication all through had been that the
murderer was a man accustomed to the use of
carpenter’s tools. The murderer was an inmate of the house.
Put one and two together and you will see that he
would very possibly be known to the household as one
who was ‘always messing about at that there
carpent’ring.’ Deacon was also of the household, and
would therefore see nothing unusual in, say, being
asked to ‘hold this chisel (or gouge, or anything else
you like) for just half a second.’ If this seem
far-fetched, remember that from the beginning I felt the
murderer as one who had been preparing his work for
some long time.
“It was almost at the moment when I reached this
stage of thought that a number of hitherto insufficiently
substantiated suspicions which had been steadily
massing in my mind suddenly rearranged themselves in
such a manner as to become extra links in my chain
of reasoning rather than the wild plungings of a mind
tired of logic. This merging of reason with intuition
(they are twins, those two) left me certain that I
should know who I was trying to prove guilty if
Deacon gave me the name of the man against whom
these suspicions of mine had been directed in answer
to the question: ‘Who, at any time within the last
twenty-four hours preceding the murder, induced you
to hold in your right hand an implement with a short,
thick wooden handle of the same appearance as the
handle you have seen in the wood-rasp?’
“You see, I had already learned that of the
Abbotshall ménage four men frequently used, and had
consequent access to, carpenter’s tools. These were
the gardener, the chauffeur, the murdered man, and
the guest from whom I had the information.
“Hoode, the gardener, and the chauffeur I
disregarded. The first because he was not his own
murderer; the second because at the time of the
murder he was in bed at the Cottage Hospital in
Marling; and the third because he has respectable and
trustworthy friends to swear that he spent the evening
of the crime in their company.
“Remained the guest—that enthusiastic amateur
Dædalus—and he the man that from the beginning
had excited those nebulous suspicions I have mentioned.
He was living in the house at the time when the
murder was committed. He was, by his own showing,
an amateur carpenter of experience and enthusiasm.
(Early he simulated ignorance as to the name of a
wood-rasp. Later, by his voluntary statement, he
showed that he could not have been ignorant of it.
This was the only slip he made when talking with me.)
“Before I took opportunity to ask Deacon the
all-important question, I did much and thought more.
With one exception, these thoughts and actions are
proper to the next part of this report, and accordingly
are dealt with there. The exception is this:—
“I became aware that of the two first-floor windows
of Abbotshall which (see Part I.) are over the
window through which the murderer entered the study,
the more easterly must have been the one used by the
murderer. For I saw what I had not seen at first,
that it would be almost an impossibility for a man
descending by a rope from the other window to swing
his legs, at the end of the descent, on to the sill of the
study window, since that window is not exactly,
as one would find in a house younger and less altered
than Abbotshall, between the two first-floor windows
above it but has most of its length beneath the more
easterly. Moreover, although a man descending from
the less easterly window might possibly have struck
with his foot that one shoot of creeper in the cleared
space beside the drain-pipe (see Part I.), he would
also be bound to do damage to the main body of the
creeper—and that is uninjured.
“It was, in fact, obvious that the murderer had come
out of the room with the more easterly window. (I
was annoyed with myself for not having seen this
sooner.)
“That window is to the room occupied as a
sitting-room by Sir Arthur Digby-Coates.
“My suspect amateur carpenter was Sir Arthur
Digby-Coates.
“When at last I put to Deacon my question of
who had given him any implement with a wooden
handle to hold, the answer was: ‘Sir Arthur
Digby-Coates.’
“(Note.—Before going on to Part III, it might be
well to explain briefly the circumstances in which
Deacon was induced to leave the prints of his fingers
on the handle. It is not essential, but may be of
interest. Deacon, when I asked him my question,
explained that on the morning of the day of the
murder he passed by Digby-Coates’s sitting-room.
The door was open. Digby-Coates called to him to
come in. He entered to find, as on several previous
occasions, that Digby-Coates was amusing himself
with the completing of an excellent carved cabinet
he had been engaged on for many weeks. Digby-Coates
was in difficulties, having, he explained, too few
hands. Deacon was asked to stand by. He did so,
and assisted the enthusiast by handing from the
carpenter’s bench near the window, one tool after the
other. Among them was one, he just remembered,
with a handle such as I had described and such as he
remembered the wood-rasp handle to be now that he
came to think of it.)
“So there you are. When I heard the story I felt,
I confess, no little admiration for Digby-Coates.
He is so thorough! You see, this was not the first
time Deacon had given such assistance. And he knew
Deacon thought little and cared less about the whole
business of cabinet-making.
III
“It is evidence purely of trivialities which has put
Deacon in a cell awaiting trial; yet I am convinced
that did I attempt to establish his innocence merely
by the means I have employed so far, the very people
who already accept his guilt as certain would accuse
me of having nothing but trivialities upon which to
base my version of the affair. Further, it could be
said—and would be—that I have read between the
lines writing which was not there; that I have so
ingeniously twisted the interpretation of what are, in
fact, merely ordinarily meaningless signs as to make
them appear a grim and coherent indictment against
another man; that I have seen an anarchist bomb in
a schoolboy’s snowball and a Bolshevik outrage in a
varsity rag.
“So I must strengthen my case; for the truth is
that this evidence of trivialities is good, but not nearly
good enough. It must have a backing to it.
“Now, there is, if you look at it, a complete absence
of any backing to the case against Deacon. ‘What
about the money?’ you say. ‘What about that
hundred pounds belonging to Hoode? There’s motive
for you!’ ‘Nonsense!’ say I. Deacon was paid six
hundred pounds a year. He had also an allowance
from his only living relative. He had been, it is
true, a little shorter of money than usual lately; but to
suggest that he would commit a murder for a hundred
pounds is absurd. A man in his position could have
raised the money in a thousand safer and less energetic
ways. No, Deacon’s story that the money was a
birthday gift from Hoode is, besides being more likely,
true. Further, it is easy of proof that Deacon and
Hoode were on the best of terms: for corroboration
apply to the Ministry of Imperial Finance and the
households of Abbotshall and 12 Seymour Square.
Further still, look at Deacon’s record and see how
rash it is to condemn him murderer with nothing more
to go upon than those too-beautiful finger-prints and a
few ragged pieces of circumstantial evidence, the
two best of which were supplied—oh! so ingenously—by
Sir Arthur Digby-Coates. For it was from him
that the police first learnt that Hoode had drawn a
hundred pounds in notes from his bank. And it was
through him that it became known that Deacon had
asked him the time at ten forty-five on the night of
the murder—the time to which the hands of the
clock in the study had been moved by the murderer.
“There being no backing to the case of the Crown
against Deacon, I saw that if I could find a stout
one for mine against Digby-Coates I should score
heavily.
“The first thing to be found was motive. What,
I asked myself, could it be? Money? No. Digby-Coates
is a wealthier man by far than ever was Hoode.
Revenge for some particular ill turn? Hardly that,
since Hoode, though a politician, bore all his life
the stamp of honesty and straight dealing. A woman?
I was not prepared to accept one as the sole cause.
She might, of course, be contributory, but I wanted
something more likely. Middle-aged men of the
social and intellectual standing of these two do not
often, in this age of decrees nisi and cold love, go
about killing each other over a woman if she is only
the first blot upon the fair sea of their friendship.
“I was forced back, in this search for motive, upon
the deductions I had made from those little material
signs, and remembered that I had determined, before
ever I thought of putting a name to the murderer, that
John Hoode was killed by a man insane; not mad in the
gibbering, straws-in-the-hair sense, but mentally
unbalanced by a kind of ingrowing, self-nourishing
hatred.
“I took this as my starting point and asked myself
how I could find corroboration of and reason for this
hatred having existed in the heart of a man ostensibly
the closest friend of its object. The answer was:
look at their past history; as much of it as is available
in books of record. I did so, using Hoode’s own
books.
“I found soon enough reason for the hatred. Look
as I looked. You will see that always, always, always
was Digby-Coates beaten by the man he killed. Were
the race one of scholarship, sport, politics, social
advancement, honours, the result was the same. Hoode
first; Digby-Coates second. Look in the Who’s Who,
Hansard, the records of Upchester School and
Magdalen, the Honours Lists. Look in the minds of the
men’s colleagues and contemporaries. Always will
you find the same story. Look at this, the slightest
extract from the list:—
| John Hoode. |
Arthur Digby-Coates. |
| Captain of Upchester (last three years at school). |
Senior Monitor (same three years). |
| Won John Halket scholarship to Magdalen. |
Second on list. |
| Rowed 2 in Oxford boat (third year). |
Rowed 6 in trials (third year). |
| Gaisford (fourth year). |
Newdigate (fourth year). |
| Minor office (Admiralty) after three years in Parliament. |
Still merely M.P. after six months longer in Parliament. |
| President of Board of Trade. |
Still M.P. (He was, I believe, offered at this time a minor
Parliamentary Secretaryship; but refused.) |
| K.C.M.G., C.V.O., etc. |
K.B.E. |
| Minister of Imperial Finance (from the date of the forming of the
Ministry in 1919.) |
Almost at same time accepted Parliamentary Secretaryship to Board
of Conciliation. |
“One could go on for pages, for ever telling this
story of races won by a stride—Hoode the winner,
Digby-Coates his follower-up—and that stride getting
longer and longer as time went on.
“But at last came the race for the Woman—the race
whose loss snapped the last cord of sanity in the mind
of the loser.
“I discovered the existence of the Woman in this
way: I searched Hoode’s desk in suspicion of a
hidden drawer. I found one and in it a diary (of
no use save to corroborate the fact of some of those
races), and a bunch of newspaper-cuttings. But I
knew—how is no matter—that something was missing
from that drawer.
“What that something was I did not know. I only
knew that it was most probably of importance. So
I searched the house—and found it. A packet of
letters from the Woman. As I was by then up to
the neck in the unspeakable nasty work of the Private
Inquiry Agent, I read them. Who the woman is will
not be set down here. It is my hope that not even in
court shall I have to give her name.
“I sought her and talked with her. Put briefly and
brutally her replies were that I was correct in assuming
that she had been Hoode’s mistress, and that I was also
right (this was a shot in black dark) in assuming
that she knew Sir Arthur Digby-Coates. She did
not, it seemed, have any affection for the gentleman.
She made it plain to me, under some pressure, that Sir
Arthur had wished her to stand in the relation to him
that she subsequently did to John Hoode. But a
(shrug of distaste) Sir Arthur had been sent
packing—and quickly.
“Is not that enough, when added to those other and
perpetual defeats of the past five-and-thirty years, to
show the reason for hatred in the mind of the egoist?
Consider the history of the matter. First, boyish
jealousy and a determination to win next time; then the
gradual process of realisation that strive as he would
he would never reach a common goal before his rival;
then the slow at first but increasingly fast transition
from healthy jealousy to dislike, from dislike to utter
hatred. Then, at last, with the crowning loss of the
Woman, the monomania—for this is what the hatred
is grown—takes a firmer hold and becomes a fire so
fierce that only the complete elimination of the hated
man will quench it.
“So much for reasons why Digby-Coates should have
hated Hoode. Now for corroboration that such hatred
actually existed.
“I wrote just now of certain newspaper-cuttings
which I found in the hidden drawer of Hoode’s desk.
These were a bunch of twenty-four, taken from
various issues (all bearing dates within the last two
years) of The Searchlight, The St. Stephen’s Gazette,
and Vox Populi. Every one of the cuttings was
a leading or almost equally prominent article attacking
the Minister of Reconstruction in no half-hearted
way.
“Being one who prefers news without sensationalism,
I had never before read a line from any one of these
three papers. I came to these extracts, therefore, with
a mind not only open but blank, and was immediately
struck by the strange unanimity of the three newspapers
in regard to John Hoode. For, as all the world must
know, whether they read them or not, the trio are of
politics widely varying. Their attacks upon the
murdered man were made upon different grounds, it is true,
but the very fact that the attacks were made, and made
so viciously, struck me as unusual. It seemed to me
that in the ordinary way the fact of one attacking
would be enough to make at least one of the others
defend. Further, the grounds upon which the attacks
were made appeared to my unbiased mind as flimsy
compared with the whole-hearted virulence of the
writing.
“From wondering and re-reading, I came upon a
thing yet stranger: the unmistakable and mysterious
similarity in the style of the composition. This
similarity was to me, who have made something of a study
of other men’s methods, even more pronounced when
attempts had been made to disguise or vary the manner
of writing. After ten minutes’ examination of those
cuttings, I was prepared to swear that one man had
been conducting the anti-Hoode campaign in three
papers whose views on every other matter from
vaccination to the Vatican are as wide apart as Stoke
Poges, Seattle, and Sinbad the Sailor. I pictured a
man of some scholastic attainment who was unable to
write in fashion other than preciously correct and so
set in his style as to be incapable of varying it, tried he
never so hard.
“I took the cuttings and my conviction to Deacon.
He could not help me, so I went to his predecessor as
Hoode’s private secretary (the real private secretary,
like Deacon, not the departmental one.) From him I
obtained confirmation of my theory. He, too, had
suspected that not only was one man behind these press
attacks, but that this man was also the actual author. He
showed me something I had only half-noticed till then;
something which went further than mere similarity of
style. Throughout the articles, he pointed out,
quotations occurred. They were, some of them, unusual
quotations. But usual or unusual, one and all were
correct! They were correct in some cases to the point
of pedantry—if correctness can be so described. And
they were thus correct in these three widely differing
and highly sensational papers, whose literary standards
have always been a byword with those who hate
journalese, cliché, and the dreadful mutilation,
humiliation and weakening of the English language.
“It was when this former secretary of Hoode’s
pointed this out to me that I recollected having recently
been puzzled by a memory which would not be
remembered. In one of the cuttings I had come
across a quotation from Virgil, in which a dative case
had been used rather than the all-prevalent but less
correct genitive, and had been haunted at the time of
reading with a sense of having seen this same rarity only
recently. Suddenly it came back to me. It had been
in a book of essays I had dipped into—a book of essays
which, on inquiry made later, turned out to be from
the pen of Sir Arthur Digby-Coates, writing under
a feminine nom de guerre.
“That, I admit, is not much to go upon. But more
was to come. This forerunner of Deacon had—before
he quarrelled with Hoode and left him—on
his own initiative employed a private detective and set
him to unearth this enemy of Hoode’s that seemed to
command and write for three incendiary newspapers.
You see, this secretary was sure that there was an
enemy of some importance at work. At first he said
nothing to Hoode, but at last told of his suspicions.
He was laughed at. He returned to the charge—and
they quarrelled. He left Hoode’s employment without
having told him of the private detective. Being, with
some excuse, not a little angry, he paid the detective,
telling him to stop the work and go to hell.
“But, luckily, the private detective had smelt a Big
Thing, and consequently Big Money. He went on
working. He finished his job. I got into touch with
him. He has been paid, and the result of his labours
has been forwarded to Scotland Yard.
“His proofs are more than adequate. He has
established, mainly through the corruptibility of a
disgruntled employee, that Digby-Coates was beyond doubt the
hidden owner of those three newspapers and also the
composer of all these elaborate pæans of hate which
appeared in them from time to time, and were directed
against the man who was his friend and whose
friendship he so cleverly pretended to return. (One cannot
but admire the ingenuity with which Digby-Coates
foisted more or less respectable and quite foolish
figureheads upon the world—including the rest of the
Press—as owners of the papers upon the purchase and
upkeep of which he must have spent nearly half his
great fortune. He was truly a great Enemy!)
“But it was in himself writing the attacks with which
he tried to bring Hoode to a fall that he overstepped
himself and made a loophole through which curious
persons could wriggle. Had he left the writing to
different men and rested content with being the power
behind the machine, he would have increased by a
thousand his chances of remaining undiscovered. I
suppose that his hate was so strong that to leave
to others the forging of the weapons was beyond
him.
“Before ending the third part of this report, I
would draw attention to what has thus far been
established—established, I hope, to the satisfaction of even
the most rigorous anti-Deaconite.
“It has been shown that there is both reason for
and corroboration of Digby-Coates’s hatred of Hoode.
“It has been shown not only that all the evidence
against Deacon can be used equally well against
Digby-Coates, but also that there is in fact more of this
evidence of material signs against Digby-Coates than
there is against Deacon.
“Above all, we have in the case against Digby-Coates
two things (which might be called one thing)
that there have never been against Deacon. The first
is motive—although it is nothing more (nor less) than
the crazy hatred of a half-madman. The second is
reliable evidence that ill-will existed before the murder.
IV
“If I were delivering this report as a lecture, I am
sure that there would be a little fat man in a corner
bounding up and down with ill-suppressed irritation.
At this stage he would be unable to restrain himself
any longer and would ask passionately why the hell I
was wasting my time and his by faking up a case
against a man who had a chilled-steel alibi—the
perfect, unassailable defence of a man who is seen by
various people at such times and in such a place as
to make it impossible for him to have committed the
crime.
“I would assure the fat little man—as I assure
those who read—that I would in due course deal with
and demolish that alibi, pointing out at the same time
that it was the very perfection of the thing which
had bred some of my first suspicions of its owner.
It was too good, too complete, in a household where
every one else had only ordinary ones; it was a
Sunday-go-to-meeting alibi; the alibi of a man who at
least knew that a crime was going to be committed.
“But more of that later. For the moment I will
take two points which, though they might be considered
proper to the first part of this document, I have
seen fit to reserve until now.
“The first concerns a rope. I have explained that
I found it necessary to search the house. During that
search, which was not only for the missing letters from
the drawer in Hoode’s writing-table, I went into
Deacon’s bedroom. This is next to, and on the west
side of, the room used by Digby-Coates as a sitting-room,
study, and, occasionally, carpenter’s shop. (He
has had a bench fitted up there for him, as I mentioned
earlier.)
“In the grate in Deacon’s bedroom was a little pile
of soot which at once attracted my attention, as being
unusual in so scrupulously tended a house as
Abbotshall. I investigated. On the ledge which runs round
the interior of the chimney at the point where—on
a level with the mantelpiece outside—it suddenly
narrows, I found a coil of silk cord of roughly the
thickness of a man’s little finger. It was double-knotted
at intervals of two inches throughout its length,
which was sixteen feet. (By the time this report is
read the rope will be in the hands of the
authorities. They would have had it sooner, only I was not
giving away information until my case was complete.)
“That pile of soot in the grate was not of long
standing. The cord was new. I knew at once that
I had found the rope by which my criminal had
descended the wall. But how did it get where I
found it?
“I saw that the only answer which would fit the
rest of my case was that the rope had been put there
by Digby-Coates. Since I knew Deacon to be innocent
and I had nowhere found any evidence to show that
Digby-Coates had an accomplice, it could have been
nobody else. And it was so easy for him, occupying
as he did the room next to Deacon’s.
“I am aware that here I am treading on dangerous
ground—from the point of view, that is, of the
logical anti-Deaconite—but I say nevertheless that this
business of the rope strengthens my case and goes to
give yet further indication of Digby-Coates’s
deliberate plan to fasten his guilt upon Deacon. Silk rope
of so excellent a quality is not common, and I think
that Scotland Yard should have little difficulty in
tracing its purchase. So convinced am I that they
will find Digby-Coates at the other end of the trail that,
if I could be of any use, I would willingly help them.
Without the rest of my investigations, the finding of
that rope would only have hastened Deacon’s journey
to another and thicker one. But with them it has an
effect most different.
“Now for the second matter which was to be dealt
with before the alibi.
“It will be remembered that a great point against
Deacon was that the hands of the overturned clock
in the study stood at 10.45. The coroner, in reviewing
the case at the end of the inquest, argued thus: At
a quarter to eleven Deacon had entered the room of
Sir Arthur Digby-Coates and inquired the time. That
he had done so was apparent both from the evidence
of Sir Arthur and of Deacon himself. All the other
evidence pointed to Deacon: Was it not then only
reasonable to assume that Deacon, after committing the
murder and arranging the room to look as if a struggle
had taken place, had pushed those hands back to 10.45,
knowing that at that time he had been with so reputable
a witness as Sir Arthur Digby-Coates? The whole
thing was clear, said the coroner, answering his own
question and practically directing the already willing
jury to pass a verdict against Deacon.
“The coroner added that he could not say whether,
if his assumption were correct, which he was sure it
was, Deacon had asked the time of Sir Arthur Digby-Coates
in order to be able, by moving the clock, to
establish an alibi, or whether that request for the time
had been an accident and the moving of the clock
hands a subsequent idea brought about by memory
of the ‘time’ incident. In any case, added this erudite
official, the omission to make a corresponding alteration
in the chiming served to show how the cleverest
criminal will always make some foolish mistake which
will afterwards lead to his capture.
“How true! How trite! And, in this instance,
how utterly wrong! Observe. Both Digby-Coates
and Deacon are highly intelligent men. Suppose
either of them wishing to show by moving back the
hands of a clock that the clock stopped at a time
earlier than it did in fact: would either make the
ridiculous, childish mistake of forgetting the striking?
I think not!
“Observe again. Two men know that one asked
the other the time. Why, then, is the subsequent
utilising of that incident to be attributed to only one
of them? Clearly it can apply equally to both!
“Here again the evidence which has been used
against Deacon can be used at least equally well against
Digby-Coates.
“This clock business, I say, is only further proof of
the great ingenuity of Digby-Coates. It was the
cleverest stroke of all. Deacon innocently, naturally,
asks him the time. At once Digby-Coates, having
already made up his mind that to-night was the night,
is seized with an idea whose brilliance is surprising
even to himself. Deacon, the man he has already
chosen as scapegoat, is playing into his hands.
“Suppose (I can see his mind working) that he
slew Hoode just on the hour, and then made sure,
after the clock in the study had struck, that its works,
though undamaged, would not go on working, and
then moved the hands back till they stood at 10.45.
The disorder of the striking when the clock was set
going again would reveal to investigators the fact that
the hands had been moved and that the clock had
stopped not before the hour but after it. Why, these
investigators, would ask, had the hands been moved
to that particular place—10.45? Soon they would
find out—he, clever fellow! helping them without
seeming to—that at this moment on the night of the
crime Deacon had asked him the time. ‘Ah-ha!’ would
say the investigators, ‘Mr. Deacon, to whom so much
else points, has been trying to make alibis for himself!’
“But how, he thinks, can he carry out this great,
this wonderful scheme? Ah, yes! Let him put himself
in Deacon’s place; let him think what Deacon would
do if he was killing Hoode. If he stopped the clock,
he wouldn’t draw too much attention to it, so—so—ah,
yes!—he would try to make it look as if there had
been a struggle and would derange the tidy room
accordingly!
“That, I am convinced, is the way Digby-Coates
reasoned. To put it briefly, he had to arrange the
study to look, not as if a struggle had really taken
place, but as if some one had tried their best to make
it look like that. That is to say, while giving the air
of a genuine attempt to mislead, he must yet make
sure that investigators were not, in fact, misled; the
first thing, for instance, that he had to do was to
ensure that attention was drawn to the clock, but in
such a way as to make it seem that endeavours had
been made to draw attention from it.
“Clever, you must admit. Clever as hell! And
successful, as those who have followed the case must
know. He got the effect he wanted—that of a man
who had tried to mislead. The police know that
‘struggle’ scene for a fake. But I hope I have shown
that it was a double fake. If you think I have imbued
my criminal with more ingenuity than any murderer
would possess, remember that I, too, am a man, and
therefore a potential murderer. Remember also
something of which I have given more tangible proof—the
finger-print game he played on Deacon. Remember
that it was through him that the police first learnt of
the money Hoode had drawn from his bank, and the
fact that at 10.45 on the night of the murder Deacon
had asked him the time! Remember that this business
of the clock and the ‘struggle’ is like that of the silk
cord—nothing without what I have described in the
earlier parts of this report, but with it a great deal.
“And now for that alibi.
“That the murderer was in the study after the
clock there—which, by the way, was correct by the
other clocks in the house, had struck eleven, is proved
by the fact of the striking of that clock being one
hour behind.
“Miss Hoode entered the study and found the body
at about ten minutes past eleven.
“The murderer, then, left the study at some time
between two minutes past the hour at the earliest and
ten minutes past.
“So soon as I was certain that the murderer was
Digby-Coates, I saw that before my case against him
was complete I must disprove his alibi; also I realised
that this could best be done by ascertaining much more
definitely at what time he left the study to climb back
up the wall and into his room. That eight minutes
between eleven-two and eleven-ten was too wide a
margin to work in.
“The more I pondered this task the more removed
from possibility seemed its completion. Then, by the
grace of God, there emerged, in circumstances which
need not be set down here, a new witness whose
evidence put me in possession of exactly the information
I needed.
“This witness is Robert Belford, a man-servant, and
therefore a permanent member of the Hoode household.
He is a highly-strung little man, and refrained at first
from telling what he knew through very natural fear
of being himself suspected of the murder of his
master.
“Before Belford’s emergence I had come to the
conclusion—though I could not see then how this was
going to help—that the acceptance of the old
butler—Poole—as a perfect trustworthy witness had been a
mistake. I discovered, you see, that he suffers from
that inconvenient disorder hay-fever.
“When in the throes of a seizure he can neither
see, hear nor speak; is conscious, in fact, of nothing
save discomfort. That these seizures last sometimes
for as long as a minute and a half I can swear to
from having watched the old man struggle with one.
“Immediately after my discovery of the existence
in him of this ailment, I questioned Poole; with the
result that at last he remembered having suffered a
paroxysm on the night of the murder at some time
during that part of the evening before the murder
when his master was in the study and the rest of the
house was quiet. He had not remembered the incident
until I asked him. His memory, as he says, is not
what it was, and in any case the event was not
sufficiently out of the ordinary to have stayed in his
head after all the emotions of that crowded night.
“But it was during, or rather at the beginning, of
that minute and a half or two minutes during which
the old man could do nothing but cough and sneeze
and choke and gasp with his head between his knees,
that Belford—the new witness—had entered the study—by
the door!
“When he got into the room he saw immediately
the body of his master. In one horrified second (I
have said that he is an intensely nervous, highly-strung
little man) he took it all in; corpse, disorder, and all
the other details of that brilliant and messy crime.
And there was, he swears, no one else in the room.
The only place in which a man could have hidden
would have been the alcove at the far end of the room,
but the curtains which, as a rule, cut that off from
view, were on that night drawn aside.
“Belford, after that one great second of horror,
fled. As he closed the door behind him, he noticed
that Poole, in his little room across the hall, was still
wrestling with his paroxysm. Belford retreated. He
was terrified that this dreadful crime he had seen
might be laid at his door were he seen coming from
the room. It was, to say the least, unusual that he
should enter the study when his master was working
there. Nobody, he felt, would believe him if he told
them that he had gone there to ask a favour of the
dead man. He crept up the dark hall and crouched
on the stairs.
“His position was directly under the clock which
hangs there; and here you have the reason for what
has possibly seemed meticulousness on my part in
describing this minor incident. He became aware,
without thinking, of what that clock said. He stared
up at it blankly. But, as often happens, this mechanical
action impresses itself on his memory. He swears—nothing
will shake his evidence—that the time was
five minutes past eleven.
“There you have it. Digby-Coates, as I have shown,
cannot have left the study before eleven-two. At
some point between eleven-four and eleven-five Belford
finds the study empty of life.
“I split the difference and took eleven-three as
the time at which Digby-Coates left the study—by
the window. He must have been, I argued, snugly
back in his room by four minutes past at the latest.
He is still an active and very powerful man, and the
climb could not have taken him long.
“Having, after hearing what Belford had to tell
me, thus been enabled to know at least a part of the
time which must prove a weak spot in the alibi, I
reviewed that itself. Before I do so, here, however,
there is one more point which I must settle. It
concerns the hay-fever of the aged Mr. Poole. As the
attack of this malady which let Belford into the study
unobserved failed to stay in his memory, it might be
thought that he may have had another attack, enabling
another man to enter the study without being seen.
That idea, which is sure to be entertained, is, I submit,
of no value. One attack is ordinary enough; but the
old man tells me that he has been ‘better lately.’ Two
of those painful seizures would have stayed in his mind.
Besides, there is the silk rope and other evidence to
prove descent by the wall. Also, the crime was
obviously premeditated, and no murderer of such skill as
Hoode’s would rely upon the hay-fever of an aged
butler, even if he knew of its existence.
“Now for the facts of the alibi. It will be
remembered that Digby-Coates had, on the night of the
murder, retired to his own sitting-room at a few minutes
after ten. The night was hot. He opened the window
to its fullest extent; also flung the door open. This
was (I use his own words, spoken at the inquest)
‘in order to get the benefit of any breeze there might
be.’ Further, since he ‘wished to be alone in order
to go through some important papers,’ he pinned upon
that open door a notice: ‘Busy—do not disturb.’
“After he had gone to his room, the first incident
with which we need concern ourselves occurred at
10.45, when Deacon made that famous request for the
time. At that moment Digby-Coates was pacing the
room, and Deacon, disregarding or not seeing the
notice on the door, put his question from the passage.
“About seven minutes later, Belford, walking down
the passage, saw Digby-Coates standing in the
doorway.
“The next we hear is from Elsie Syme, one of the
housemaids, who ‘saw Sir Arthur sitting in his big
chair by the window’ as she passed his door. (The
quotation is from her reply to a question of
Superintendent Boyd’s.) So far as can be ascertained, this
was not more than five minutes after Belford had
passed by—making the time about 10.57.
“Next comes another housemaid, Mabel Smith, who
had been working in the linen-closet, which is opposite
the door of Deacon’s room. She said that returning
from the journey she had made downstairs (and by
forgetting which she had furnished Deacon with that
false alibi which he rather foolishly tried to make use
of) she had noticed Sir Arthur ‘sitting in his room.’
The time then, as guessed at by the girl and more
definitely confirmed by Elsie Syme, who knew what
time she had left the servant’s hall, was between eleven
and one minute past.
“Next comes Belford again. You remember that
he entered the study at a point between three and four
minutes past eleven. On his way there from the upper
part of the house he passed Digby-Coates’s room and
‘saw Sir Arthur by the window.’ Since he went
straight to the study, the time at which he passed
Digby-Coates’s door cannot have been earlier than
11.03.
“After this we have Elsie Syme again. This time
she is on her way to bed. Passing along the passage
she again ‘saw Sir Arthur sitting by the window.’
The time in this instance is a little harder to get at,
but cannot have been more than six minutes past the
hour.
“Last we have the evidence of old Poole, who, after
entering the study on hearing Miss Hoode scream,
immediately fled to fetch his dead master’s friend.
He found Sir Arthur sitting with a book, his arm-chair
pulled close up to the open window. This, since
Miss Hoode entered the study at approximately ten
minutes past eleven, was probably at 11.13 or
thereabouts.
“That is the alibi, and a very good one it is,
too—too good. It was, of course, never recognised as
being an alibi, since Digby-Coates was never suspected
by police or public as being the murderer; but the
very fact of its being there (it trickled out mixed
up with unimportant and verbose evidence, and was
very cleverly referred to by Digby-Coates himself on
every possible occasion) must have had its sub-conscious
effect. (I should perhaps explain here that, as
Digby-Coates was never suspected and the alibi was therefore
the nebulous but effective thing I have described, the
times I have given were not mentioned otherwise than
generally: such exactitude as appears above is the
result of Superintendent Boyd’s and my own
questioning, of which more came later.)
“I have shown that according to the witnesses, none
of whom I could suspect of anything but honesty,
Digby-Coates was seen there in his room at times
which made it impossible that he should have done the
murder. Yet I knew he was the murderer. Therefore
some at least of these witnesses who had sworn
to seeing him were mistaken.
“I had, then, to find out (a) which witnesses were
thus in error, and (b) how they had been induced to
make their common mistake.
“I got at (a) like this: (if the way seem long and
roundabout, remember that it is far more difficult to
find things out than to understand, when told, how they
were so found out):—
“Digby-Coates, I reasoned, must have begun his
preparations immediately after Belford saw him
standing in the doorway of his room at eight minutes to
eleven. To descend the wall; to enter the study; to
hold Hoode in chaffing conversation for a moment
to allay his curiosity regarding the unusual method of
entry; to kill him; to reassemble the wood-rasp; to
set the ‘struggle’ scene; arrange the clock; to climb
back up the wall again; and all as noiseless as you
please, cannot have taken him less than eight minutes
at the very least. As I have shown, he was in all
probability back in his room by four minutes past the
hour (if not earlier) and it will be seen, therefore,
that he must have begun descent of the wall by four
minutes to at the latest.
“The witnesses I was after, therefore, were those
who thought they had seen him between four minutes
to and four minutes past the hour.
“Of these, as you can see from my statement of
the alibi, Elsie Syme is the first, Mabel Smith the
second, and Belford the third. (Elsie Syme, it is
true, might be considered as barely coming within my
rough-and-ready time-limit, but you must remember
that all the times I fixed were calculations and not
stop-watch records.)
“Separately, I questioned the three servants. It
was not an easy task. I had to handle them gently,
and I had to impress upon them the vital necessity
to forget the conversation as soon as they had left
me. I think I managed it.
“Their answers to my first important question were
the same, though each was with me alone when I
put it.
“I said: ‘You say you saw Sir Arthur at such
and such a time in his room on the night of the
murder, and that he was sitting in his chair and that that
chair was by the window. Are you certain of this?’
“They said: ‘Yes, sir,’ and said it emphatically.
“I played my trump card. I played it in some
fear; if the answers were not what I expected, my
case fell.
“I said: ‘Now tell me: exactly how much of Sir
Arthur did you see? What parts of him, I mean.’
“They goggled.
“I tried again: ‘Was the chair that big arm-chair?
And was it facing the window with its back
to the door?’
“ ‘Yes, sir,’ they said.
“I said: ‘Then all you saw of Sir Arthur was——’
“They replied, after some further help but with
conviction, that all they had seen was the top of his
head, part of his trousers, and the soles of his shoes.
Belford, who is an intelligent man, expanded his
answer by saying: ‘You see, sir, we’re all so used-like
to seein’ Sir Arthur sittin’ like that and in that
chair as we just naturally thinks as how we’d seen
all on ’im that night.’ Which, I think, is as lucid an
explanation of the mistake as could well be given.
“I must explain here how I came in possession of
this trump card of mine. It was through two casual
observations, which at first never struck me as bearing
in any way upon the matter I was investigating. The
first was the annoying, almost impossible tidiness of
Digby-Coates’s hair. It did not appear to be greased
or pomaded in any way, and yet I never saw it other
than as if he had just brushed it, and with care. The
second was his curious trick of sitting on the edge of
a chair with his feet thrust first backwards through
the gateway formed by the front legs and then
outwards until each instep is pressed against the back of
each of those front legs. It is a trick most boys have,
but it is unusual to find it persisting in a man of
middle-age. Digby-Coates does not, of course, always
sit like that, but frequently.
“What changed these two chance observations—the
sort of thing one idly notices about any man of one’s
acquaintance without really thinking about them—into
perhaps the most important minor step in my case was
a glimpse I had of Digby-Coates from the very point
from which the servants who made his alibi had seen
him. He was sitting as they had seen him sit (though
I did not know this until I questioned them) in the big
arm-chair, which was facing the window. All I could
see from the passage was the long, solid back of the
chair, the top of the well-tended head, six inches of
each trouser-leg, and the soles of two shoes. On the
open door was a notice: ‘Busy—Please do not
disturb.’
“The scene was, in fact, a replica of what I had
gathered it to be on the night of the murder. I fell
to thinking, and suddenly the most annoying pieces
of my jig-saw puzzle fell into place. I went in and
spoke to him. I looked, more carefully than ever
before, at his head, and came to the conclusion that he
was bald, but wore the most skilfully made toupé I had
ever seen. I remembered that he had told me that he
never used a valet. I pictured him—he is the type—as
one to whom the thought that any one else knew
how unsavoury he appeared minus hair was abhorrent.
“When I discovered the toupé, I knew that I could
smash the alibi if only the unknowing alibi-makers
gave me, honestly, the answers I wanted.
“As you know, they did. I consider the matter
clear, but I know it. Perhaps I had better show what
Digby-Coates did that night; how he set his stage and
played out his one-act show.
“He retires to his room, knowing that Hoode is
in his study, Deacon busy or, as often of late, out,
Miss Hoode and Mrs. Mainwaring in their beds, and
some of the servants, as he wishes them, moving about
the house—he has studied their movements and knows
that on this night of the week there is work to do which
keeps them later than usual. Luckily for him, the
night is hot. It gives the necessary excuse for leaving
his door as well as his window open. Upon that open
door—which is not back against the wall, but only
half open—he places a notice: ‘Busy—Please do not
disturb.’
“(Observe the cunning of this notice. He had,
I found from the servants, placed such a notice on
the open door on two previous occasions. This, I am
sure, he had done for a two-fold reason: (i) to see
whether it would really keep out intruders, and (ii) to
ensure, when eventually he placed it there on the night
he chose for the killing of Hoode, that though the
household were not become sufficiently accustomed to
it to avoid a glance at it and subsequently into the
room, the sight of the notice was yet familiar enough
to ensure that it was not remarkable as being without
precedent. He had, you see, for the sake of his alibi,
to make certain that people passing (i) would look
into his room; (ii) would not come in; and (iii)
would not think the notice anything out of the
ordinary.)
“Having placed his notice he draws his arm-chair
up to its familiar position facing the window. Then
he has to wait. Sometimes he sits. Sometimes, the
waiting too hard upon even such nerves as his, he paces
the room.
“All goes well. Every one, everything, plays into
his hands. The very man he has chosen to incriminate
draws the noose, by that request for the time, tighter
round his own neck. The leaden-footed minutes, what
with this incident, that of Belford, and the increasing
certainty of success, begin to pass more swiftly.
People go their ways past his door but do not enter.
“At last it is time. He gets his knotted rope,
secures it to the leg of the carpenter’s bench Hoode
has had fitted for him. The bench is clamped to the
floor; no doubt but that it can stand the strain.
“Now, with a wary eye upon the door, he takes
from its hiding-place the replica of the toupé which
is on his head, pads it out with a handkerchief, and
sets it on top of a pile of books on the seat of the chair.
The pile is just of the height to show the hair over
the chair-back to one looking into the room from the
passage. He knows, he has tested it many times,
(He may, possibly, have used the half-wig from his
head. But I think not. He must have had more than
one; and he would not wish to have anything unusual
in his appearance when he faced Hoode. The
difficulty of explaining as a joke his entrance by the
window would be sufficient.)
“A pair of dress trousers pinned to the chair, the
lower ends of the legs slightly padded and twisted one
round each of the chair’s front legs, and a pair of
patent-leather shoes set at the right angle, complete the
picture.
“(So simple as to sound comic, isn’t it? But if
one thinks, one can see that in that simplicity lies that
same touch of genius which characterises the whole
of the other arrangements of the crime. To utilise
his own little tricks, such as that way he had of sitting
on a chair like a nervous schoolboy, that is genius. He
knew that all they could have seen of him from that
doorway, if he had really sat in his favourite position
in that chair, would have been the top of his head, the
ends of his trousers, and his shoes. He knew also
that they were so accustomed to seeing only hair,
trousers, and shoes when he was really there, that if
they saw hair, trousers, and shoes they would be
prepared to swear they had seen him.)
“When the time comes, at last, he drops his rope of
silk from the window and descends, his heart beating
high with exultation. The moment he has waited for,
schemed for, gloated over, will be with him at the end
of that short journey.… Some minutes later he returns
by the same precarious stair.
“It was the simplicity and sheer daring of the scheme
that made this the wellnigh perfect crime it was. It
was here that the maniac hatred he had of Hoode helped
him so greatly. I cannot conceive any but a man
insane running the tremendous risk of discovery which
he took with such equanimity. Nor would any but one
with the great clarity of mind only attained by the mad
have even dreamed of carrying out a crime so adult
by means of the schoolboy trick of the dummy. It was
an application of the bolster-in-the-dormitory-bed idea
which nearly succeeded by virtue of its very
unlikelihood.
“I have little more to say, though it would, of course,
be possible to go much further in endeavouring to show
the subtler shades of motive for each separate link of
Digby-Coates’s plot, and to go into such questions as
whether he chose Deacon as scapegoat merely for
convenience in drawing suspicion away from himself or
whether he had some darker reason; but the time for
that sort of thing is not yet.
“One more word. I wish to make it plain that as
a case I know this report to be less complete than is
desirable. I know that it might be impossible to hang
Digby-Coates simply upon the strength of what I have
set down. I know that in all probability the Crown
would say that, unless the case were strengthened, it
could not be regarded as enough even to try him on.
I know the later stages of the report are mainly
conjecture—guess-work if you like.
“I know all this, I say, but I also know that if there
is any justice in England to-day I have shown enough
of the true history of John Hoode’s death to bring
about the immediate release of Archibald Deacon.
“I know that Arthur Digby-Coates is guilty of the
murder of John Hoode, and, having gone so far
towards proving this beyond doubt, I intend to see him
brought to trial.
“The only way to bring this about is to give my work
the substantial backing of a confession by the murderer.
This I intend to obtain.
“I cannot but think that, if I succeed, my work is
finished and the agreement of even the most sceptical
assured.
“A. R. Gethryn.”
¹ Colonel Gethryn is surely too modest here.
↩︎
² The Red Thumb Mark, by R. Austin Freeman.
↩︎